A man is convinced he is dead. His wife and kids are
exasperated. They keep telling him he's not dead. But he
continues to insist he's dead.

They try telling him, "Look, you're not dead; you're
walking and talking and breathing; how can you be dead?"
But he continues to insist he is dead.

The family finally takes him to a doctor. The
doctor pulls out some medical books to demonstrate to the man
that dead men do not bleed. After some time, the man admits
that dead men do not bleed.

The doctor then takes the man's hand and a needle and
pokes the end of his finger. The man starts bleeding. He
looks at his finger and says, "What do you know? DEAD
MEN DO BLEED!"

Presuppositions,
Evangelism, and Apologetics

The above story illustrates the strength presuppositions can
have. If someone is already convinced of a particular position,
presenting contrary evidence can often be futile. The person will
often re-interpreted the evidence in light of the presupposition.
If this point is forgotten, it can lead to frustration in
evangelism and apologetics.(1)

For instance, while living in Denver, Colorado I tried
witnessing to a woman who lived in my apartment building. The
subject of Christ's resurrection came up. So I proceeded to
present evidence for His resurrection.(2)

Eventually, the woman admitted there did seem to be ample
evidence to believe in the resurrection. But then she said
something that startled me, "But Christ's resurrection only
showed the kind of power we would all have if we would just
recognize our own inner divinity as Christ did." This was
not the conclusion I wanted her to reach!

Another example would be the frustration many Christians have
experienced when witnessing to a Jehovah's Witness (JW). It seems
no matter how "clear" of evidence is given for say the
Deity of Jesus, the JW remains obstinate.(4) He simply cannot
admit what to you seems "obvious."

Of course, the above goes both ways. In my dealings with
non-Christians, I have probably seemed to be obstinate to them.
They offer me evidence that to them "obviously" proves
the Christian faith is false; but I continue to cling to my
faith.

So the question then is, how can people "stuck" in
their presuppositions discuss matters? Before this question can
be addressed, the subject of epistemology needs to be discussed.

How Do
We Know What We Know?

Theologian Millard J. Erickson defines presuppositions
as, "Assumptions that are brought to the process of thought
or reasoning."(5) So our presuppositions determine how we
think. More technically, our presuppositions determine what our
epistemology will be.

Erickson defines epistemology as, "A
theory of knowledge or an inquiry into how we gain
knowledge."(6) Or, to put it another way, how do we know
what we know? What standards do we use to determine what is true
or false/ right or wrong?

Different people ascribe to different epistemologies. Although
many people may accept more than one epistemology as being
reliable, one view is generally considered more fundamental than
the other(s).

A few epistemologies will be defined and overviewed:

Empiricism
is, "A philosophical theory which holds that all knowledge
comes through sensory perception."(7) By seeing, hearing,
touching, smelling, or tasting truth is determined. Empiricism is
the basis for scientific inquiries. It is an epistemology
atheists, naturalists, and other "freethinkers" will
generally ascribe to. Some Christians would also place a heavy
emphasis on empirical studies.

Rationalism
is another epistemology "freethinkers" might ascribe
to, along with some Christians. It is "the theory that
knowledge is gained through reasoning rather than through sense
experience."(8) Reasoning means to, "think
logically."(9) So adherents of this epistemology believe
truth can be attained through following the rules of logic.

Skepticism
is, "The doctrine that absolute knowledge is impossible and
that inquiry must be a process of doubting in order to acquire
approximate or relative certainty."(10) An agnostic would
ascribe to this position. An agnostic is,
"One who believes that there can be no proof of the
existence of God but does not deny the possibility that God
exists."(11)

Emotionalism
is the name I will give to the next epistemology. An emotionalist
is, "One whose conduct, thought, or rhetoric is governed by
emotion rather than reason, often as a matter of
policy."(12)

An emotionalist will appeal to a subjective, inner feeling for
proof of his beliefs. An example would be the Mormon
"testimony." A Mormon will "bear his
testimony" by declaring, "Joseph Smith is a prophet of
God and the Book of Mormon is the Word of God."

The basis for this testimony is the feeling the Mormon
received when he prayed about the Book of Mormon as the book
directs.(13)

Emotionalism can also be seen in Christian circles. It would
be epitomized by the lyrics of the old hymn that declares,
"You ask me how I know He lives? He lives within my
heart."(14)

Post-modernism
is somewhat similar to the above, but goes a step further.
Postmodernism is, "a view of the world characterized by a
deep distrust of reason, not to mention a disdain for the
knowledge Christians believe the Bible provides."

Further, "The postmodern view of truth is that religious
truth is never learned from an authoritative or objective source
outside of ourselves.. It is created by the worshipper once he or
she takes leave of all rational categories and enters the
mystical experience."(15) This attitude can be seen among
those who are a part of the New Age or human potential movements.

Organizational authority
is the name I will give to another epistemology. Here the person
believes what his authoritative organization tells him to
believe.

For instance, I have had Catholics tell me, "I'll believe
what the Catholic church tells me to believe." I have even
been told by Catholics that they like being Catholic for this
very reason. They do not have to struggle over what to believe.
Just believe what "the Church" says to believe.

Another example would be JWs and the organization they belong
to, The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. Although JWs will say
their beliefs come from the Bible, they are taught that "the
way of the truth" is determined through "the guidance
of the [Watchtower] organization."(16)

This mindset can be the source of the frustration in
witnessing. Even if a verse is "clear" to the
Christian, the JW will go back to "the organization"
and be told what it "really" means.

Revelation
is, "The belief that God has communicated factual
information about himself."(17) The Christian and the
adherent of any religion which claims it has an
"inspired" book or prophet would ascribe to this
epistemology.

Epistemologies
and the Christian Faith

Two important questions now need to be discussed, First, which
of the above epistemologies is correct? Unfortunately, this is a
difficult question to answer.

If the empiricist appeals to empiricism to prove empiricism is
true, then that is circular reasoning. If he appeals to some
other epistemology, say rationalism, then he is contradicting
himself. If he thinks empiricism is the ultimate determiner of
truth, then rationalism cannot be, so why appeal to it?

If the revelationist quotes his sacred
book to the empiricist, the empiricist doesn't accept it as true
unless the revelationist backs up what he says with empirical
evidence. But if the revelationist appeals to empirical evidence
then he is saying empiricism is more reliable than revelation.

It simply seems impossible to prove one epistemology to an
adherent of another.

Second, which of the above epistemologies are compatible with
the Christian faith? The Christian faith is incompatible with any
epistemology that says knowledge cannot be truly known or is
merely subjective. We can know "true truth" as Francis
Schaeffer would put it.(18) And this truth is objective.
It has, "actual existence or reality."(19)

On the other hand, empiricism can have some place in the
Christian worldview. Empirical evidences can be useful in
overcoming objections to the Christian faith.

For instance, a claim often made is that the Bible can not be
depended on due to textual problems. It is said that because it
has been transcribed over and over again so many times that we
really don't know what the apostles and prophets originally
wrote. But empirical evidence in the form of ancient manuscripts
shows the faulty nature of this claim.(20)

So there can be some compatibility between epistemologies; but
still, there can only be one ultimate test for truth. For
instance, it is God's promise to preserve His Words, not
empirical evidence, that gives the Christian ultimate confidence
in the textual integrity of the Bible (Psalm 12:6,7; Matt 5:18;
24:35; Luke 16:17).

The atheist would consider appealing to the Bible to uphold
the reliability of the Bible to be circular reasoning. The
atheist wants empirical evidences. But the Christian should
recognize that empiricism can never give absolute and final
truth.

Atheists may proudly proclaim they know the truth of something
today; but tomorrow, additional discovered evidence may prove
today's "truth" to no longer be true. So the Christian
sees no reason to constantly alter his beliefs to fit the latest
scientific pronouncement.(21)

Moreover, different people can look at the same empirical
evidences and draw completely different conclusions. Consider,
for instance, the well-publicized O.J. Simpson murder trials:

Almost from the day Simpson was arrested after the celebrated
Bronco chase on the freeways of Los Angeles, Gallup polls
recorded a substantial and persistent gap between the opinions of
white and black Americans concerning Simpson's guilt. A majority
of blacks have consistently said that the charges against the
former football star were not true, while a majority of whites
have consistently said that the charges were true.

In the most recent two polls conducted by Gallup, in April and
May [1996], 80% of whites said that the charges were true, and
15% said not true, compared with 34% of blacks who said the
charges were true and 58% who said not true.(22)

Both whites and blacks were exposed to the same evidence. So
why the disparity? Many answers could be proposed to this
question; but in general, whites and blacks have had different
life experiences. And these different experiences led them to
bring different presuppositions to the O.J. trials.

And this brings us back to the subject of presuppositions.

Basic
Presuppositions

Each of the
above epistemologies are outgrowths of basic presuppositions. The
basic Christian presupposition is, "He is there and He is
not silent" as Francis Schaeffer would put it.(23)

More specifically, the Christian faith presupposes the
existence of the God of the Bible and that the Bible is the Word
of God.(24) These views would then be further refined with
specific doctrines about the nature and attributes of God and the
reliability of the Bible.

Basic atheistic presuppositions are: "There are no gods,
no devils, no heaven or hell. There is only our natural
world."(25) Further, all events in the universe can be
explained via natural forces alone. These presuppositions lead to
an implicit trust in the ability of science to find truth.

The agnostic's skepticism prevents him from holding any
"dogmatic" position on these matters. Maybe the natural
world is all there is; maybe God exists. We simply can not know
for sure.

Adherents of other religions and philosophies would have other
basic presuppositions. But these examples should suffice to show
that these presupposition are often contradictory. Moreover, the
most important point to remember about these presuppositions is
that they are just that, presuppositions. As such, they can not
be proven or disproved.(26)

The Christian believes in the existence of God because the
Bible says He exists. The atheist couldn't care less about what
the Bible teaches.

The atheist wants empirical evidence for the existence of God.
But if he starts with the assumption "There is only our
natural world" then no amount of evidence will prove to him
the existence of a spiritual Being.

The skeptic says we cannot know if God exists or not. So the
Bible's teaching God exists or the atheist claiming only the
natural world exists are irrelevant to him. He holds his ground
in saying we just can't know.

As regards the Bible, the Christian believes it is not only
reliable, but in fact inerrant, which means it
is "free from errors."(27) The general reliability of
the Bible can be demonstrated empirically.(28) However,
empiricism could never prove inerrancy. So the atheist scoffs at
the idea and the skeptic is, well, skeptical.

Meanwhile, the Christian and the skeptic do not trust the
proud proclamations of the atheist that there is a natural or
"scientific" explanation for all that happens in the
universe.

These difficulties bring us back to the initial question of
how can people "stuck" in their presuppositions discuss
matters?

"Think
World-viewishly"

Dr. Gordon Lewis, one of my professors at Denver Seminary,
used to say that Christians need to "think
world-viewishly."

Worldview means, "The overall perspective from which one
sees and interprets the world. A collection of beliefs about life
and the universe held by an individual or a group."(29)

A worldview develops out of a person's presuppositions. The
presuppositions themselves, as stated above, cannot be proven or
disproved. But by looking at the "overall perspective"
of a person's worldview maybe some dialog can begin.

A person's worldview would include a person's epistemology,
basic presuppositions, along with all else that he believes. So
rather than focusing solely on a specific point in a worldview,
look at the worldview as a whole. Then ask a few questions:

First and foremost, how consistent is the worldview? Do the
basic presuppositions, epistemology, and other beliefs
"fit" together into a logical whole? Are there any
contradictions between the various beliefs?

In the Christian faith, one doctrine flows logically from
another. Starting with the basic Christian presuppositions about
God and the Bible, doctrines such as human nature, sin, and the
need for salvation flow in a consistent manner.

Various articles on this Web site present details on this
consistency of the Christian faith while looking at
inconsistencies in opposing worldviews.(30)

Second, does the worldview "fit" with the
world around us? For instance, the Christian faith teaches people
are created in the image of the triune God. This God is
inherently love as there has been love occurring between the
three Persons of the Godhood throughout eternity. Hence why we
are personal beings with an inherent need for love.(31)

But the Bible also teaches the human race is fallen. Hence why
we are also capable of great evil. So the Bible's teaching of a
triune God and the Fall explain the human capacity for acts of
great love, but also acts of great evil.(32)

Third, can a person live consistency with the worldview on a
day-by-day basis? Or does he occasionally need to "cheat on
his worldview" as Dr. Lewis used to put it?

Lastly, does the worldview provide meaning and purpose in
life? Can it hold a person up when his life comes crashing down?
The Christian worldview provides all these benefits, and
more!(33)

The reader may be able to think of other important questions
to ask; but the above should provide a start.

Conclusion

The concepts in this article are rather difficult and probably
new to many readers. But talking to someone who holds to a
completely differently worldview can also be very difficult, not
to mention frustrating!

Hopefully the reader will not meet up with someone who is so
obstinate as to insist that dead men do bleed; but, by taking the
time to understand the presuppositions and epistemology
underlining the other person's beliefs, it will make it easier to
understand why he believes what he believes. And this
understanding just might lead to a fruitful dialog.

But be prepared, the other person will probably want you to
explain what you believe and why you believe it. Hopefully, the
ideas presented in this article will be an aid to the reader in
thinking through your own beliefs.

The links below are direct links to where the book can be
purchased from Books-A-Million.

Suggested Reading:Brown, Colin. Miracles and the Critical Mind.
Clark, Gordon. Three Types of Religious Philosophy. Religion,
Reason, and Revelation. A Christian View of Men and Things.
McCallum, Dennis. Editor. The Death of Truth
.
Pearcey, Nancy and Charles Thaxton. The Soul of Science
.
Schaeffer, Francis. The Francis A. Schaeffer Trilogy.
(contains: The God Who is There, Escape from
Reason, He
Is There and He Is Not Silent). How Should We Then Live?
VanTil, Cornelius. Defense of the Faith
.
Robbins, John W. Editor. The Trinity Review. For a free
subscription to this excellent newsletter, write to:
The Trinity Foundation ~ P.O. Box 68 ~ Unicoi, Tn 37692.

Footnotes:1) "Apologetics" comes from the Greek word
apologia and refers to defending the Christian faith (see 1Peter
3:15).
2) See Has Christ in Fact Risen? and What
Actually Happened in 30 AD?.
3) It was with this experience that I recognized the deficiencies
of a purely evidential apologetics.
4) For brevity sake, I am generalizing here and throughout this
article. When I say, for instance, "the JW" not every
JW would be described this way. But I am basing my statements on
what I have generally come across. Also, please excuse the use of
"masculine" language in this article. But it would have
been too tedious to use "he or she" throughout.
5) Millard J. Erickson. Concise Dictionary of Christian Theology.
Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1986, p.113.
6) Ibid., p.49.
7) Ibid., p.49.
8) Ibid., p.140.
9) The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language,
Third Edition copyright 1992 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Electronic version licensed from InfoSoft International, Inc. All
rights reserved.
10) Ibid.
11) Ibid.
12) Ibid.
13) Moroni 10:3-5.
14) "He Lives" by Alfred H. Ackley. (c) 1933, 1961 by
The Rodeheaver Co. The Hymnal for Worship and Celebration. Waco,
TX: Word Music, 1986, hymn #220.
15) Current Thoughts and Trends. January 1997, p.31. Summary of
the book The Death of Truth, edited by Dennis McCallum. Italics
in original.
16) The Watchtower. January 15, 1983, p.27. Quoted in Randall
Watters. Refuting Jehovah's Witnesses. Manhattan Beach, CA:
Bethel Ministries, 1987, p.86.
17) Erickson, pp.143-4.
18) Schaeffer, Francis. The God Who Is There. Contained in
Complete Works. Vol. I. Westchester, IL: Crossways Books, 1982,
p.163.
19) American Heritage Dictionary.
20) See my articles Have Precious Truths
Been Lost from the Bible? and Introduction to Textual
Criticism.
21) See Science and the Bible.
22) Newport, Frank. May 30, 1996. Gallup's archives: http://www.gallup.com/news/960530.html.
23) From the title of Schaeffer's third book.
24) There is a heated debate among Christian apologists as to
whether the presupposition of the existence of God or the
presupposition that the Bible is the Word of God is the more
fundamental. For the purposes of this article, I will bypass this
debate by combining the two.
25) Anne Nicole Gaylor. President, Freedom from Religion
Foundation. From the back cover of an introductory pamphlet for
this group.
26) Presuppositions may also be called first principles, starting
points, or frames of references.
27) Erickson, p.83.
28) See Is the Bible Reliable?.
29) American Heritage Dictionary.
30) See, for instance, Biblical
Portrayal of the God-Human Relationship, Is Your God the God of Isaiah?, Paul in Athens, Acquaint
Yourself with God, and Joseph Smith vs.
the Book of Mormon.
31) For more on this point see The Relationship of the
Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
32) Schaeffer discusses the idea of the triune God and the Fall
explaining the human condition at length throughout his books.
33) See Value of an Intellectual Faith.